I’m often asked for case studies of great social businesses, and I must admit that it can be a hard task. Many brands are doing elements of social business well – BestBuy’s customer service, say, or Deloitte’s social recruitment – but very few yet are demonstrating a thoroughgoing commitment to being social from the inside out.
Enter IBM.
These guys are, I believe, pretty much the best example we have right now of a social business. Check out this video from Ted Stanton at the Social Business Summit 2011, charting IBM’s evolution to full social functionality across B2C, B2B and B2E. If you don’t have half an hour to spare, I’ve shared a few key takeouts below…
Their ‘social intranet’ includes over 30,000 specialist communities (some strategic and top down, some grassroots), 18,000 blogs and 12 million chats every day. Lesson: people really do use it, and employee surveys prove its business value to a range of stakeholders from HR (it makes people happy and improves retention) to sales (they do actual business deals in there)
The social media guidelines were written by IBMers in a Wiki. Yes, legal and HR then made amends, but at the core it comes from the people it affects, and everyone is encouraged and guided to build personal profiles in social media
IBM’s Jams, both on the intranet (‘how can we help the Japanese tsunami?) and through external platforms such as developerWorks (‘what will a social business lok like in 10 years time?’), are a brilliant way to gain insight and build relationships between employees but also with competitors, partners, independent consultants, the press and customers
When it comes to starting with social business, there is no magic bullet, just make sure you: communicate the value to everyone; identify the key stakeholders; define the business value for each stakeholder; and organise governance.
Of course, IBM isn’t a perfect example. There are no doubt many regions or areas of the business that don’t feel ‘social’, and Stanton himself admits that ‘it’s a long journey’.
But the important thing here is that a big, global company, with a lot of organisational complexity and a strong legacy, can make a hell of a difference by taking action, trusting its people and giving them the tools to thrive.
If you’re thinking about starting the journey too, get in touch.
My girlfriend and I spent the weekend in Dorset a couple of weeks ago, relaxing with friends. It was lovely. Beaches, barbecues and beer. Bliss. On the Friday evening, we were having a drink in the garden when my friend’s phone buzzed from inside the house.
“Oh”, he said returning with the device, “I’ve got three texts and two missed calls.”
“So do I!” said his girlfriend who had fished her phone from her bag.
All the texts, (six of them) and calls (four) were from the same person. One person who, we would later learn, was sat all alone in a hotel in the Scottish borders.
At this point, my girlfriend and I were a little bemused, so the other couple explained. The mutual friend (let’s call him Bob) had, it emerged, been in contact with our friends for the past few weeks about a wedding they were all attending.
Bob had asked them where they were staying, how they were getting there (they’re all London based) and what they were doing the night before. They, of course, assumed that he was talking about the weekend of the wedding, which was a month away. Bob, they now realised, was talking about this weekend, because that’s when he thought the wedding was.
Ah.
And now, of course, Bob was calling and texting to find out where they were. He thought they were meeting for dinner. And since it was now 9pm, his tummy was rumbling.
Bob had, through various events that included the mislaying of the invitation, an ambiguous diary entry and a series of conversations that had seemed clear – but had evidently been murk – got the date seriously wrong.
So why is any of this relevant to making brands social?
Well, it demonstrates how things can so easily go wrong when a simple piece of information isn’t readily available (the invite) or communication is based on a false assumption (the texts).
In this case, it led to time, money and a lovely cummerbund being wasted; but for your product launch, news about downtime on your service, a change in terms and conditions, or a great offer you have on this weekend, it becomes a much bigger deal.
Who’s missing out because they think they know what your brand stands for?
Who’s getting annoyed because they didn’t know your service wouldn’t be available?
Who would love to purchase your product at 25% off but doesn’t know they have the option?
If that wedding invite had been on Facebook this wouldn’t have happened (so maybe stick your sale details on there?)
If our friend’s monthly planner had been shared via email this wouldn’t have happened (so maybe share updates there?)
Next time you think you’ve been clear about your brand or activities, think about that bloke, sitting alone in a dank hotel. That happens to consumers on a daily basis.
A tale about that lesser-know social network, Gransnet
Last Christmas, my mother-in-law announced that she was never going on Facebook, that she was far too busy to mess around on the web, and that she knew no-one in her social circles who was on it. This surprised me slightly – she loves to chat to (read: advise/critique) everyone in her path, and as her demographic is the fastest growing on Facebook, I did rather expect her to be the early adopter amongst her friends.
So, when the Mumsnet offshoot, Gransnet, launched in May, I set her a challenge. Directing her to an article about the new social networking site, I asked whether she would mind trying out the site and giving me a review? My father-in-law was most enthusiastic – perhaps finally she would put those cruise ship computer lessons to some good? She said she would if I helped her log in. It took a while, and caused more than a little frustration; I began to regret the initiative, and silently gave up on my review.
Two months later, she called me up, ‘Do you want to know what I think then?’
Here it is, in summary (it did go on a bit) -
‘I really love Gransnet! I have met lots of new friends – I can split them up by their personality types – there are The Moaners, The Gigglers (I am one of these), The Supporters (they like to offer advice), The Young at Heart and The Too Young at Heart (always posting about anti-ageing). I read ‘am I being unreasonable?’ every day, and have found lots of info on the gardening and food pages. You Carrie, will love Pedant’s corner – there are over 200 posts on bad grammar! I am now telling all my friends about it.’
So well done Gransnet – if you can get my technophobic mother-in-law using (and advocating) your services, then I’m sure your ranks will surely be swelling before too long (particularly after she’s informed half of her local village).
For me, it’s powerful high profile evidence that proves that the over 50’s really are engaging online, and with disposable incomes and plenty of free time to chat, this age group are presenting a huge opportunity for brands – and not simply for those that want to directly target this market.
At 1000heads, we know that grandparents are key influencers in family decision-making (much of it directly requested), and so need to be taken seriously as both initiators and recipients of brand conversations.
For years they’ve felt ignored – engage, and the rewards could really surprise.
Now, I’m just popping off to Pedant’s Corner to see if anyone agrees with me about ‘bought’ and ‘brought’…
Perhaps a little much for a Monday morning, but Sex on Tap is what we’ve had on our minds for the past few months while we’ve been working with YouthNet, the UK’s leading online charity for providing advice, information and support to young people aged 16 to 25.
Back in March, YouthNet asked us to help them raise awareness amongst their key demographic (see above) around firstly, an issue that affects a lot of young people: the often volatile and potentially sticky (ahem) relationship between sex & alcohol, and secondly (and concurrently), the services that YouthNet’s ‘online guide to life’, TheSite.org, can provide.
So, sex & alcohol, surelyeveryone knows about the possible dangers and risks of combining these two pleasures (and who’s denying they’re pleasures?). The number of responsible drinking and/or safe sex campaigns out there must equal at least a year’s worth of drunken fumbles at (or after) a student night out!
But, irrespective of all the work that goes into this area, it still remains an issue. With statistics showing that after drinking, 11% of young people engaged in unprotected sex in 2007 and 11% again claimed to regret that sexual encounter. On top of that, Boyd et al. reports that heavy drinking amongst students (aged 18-24) is associated with high risk sexual behaviour and sexual aggression.
Not a good place to start.
It was clear that we needed to tell the story differently, in a way that would really capture young peoples’ attention and make them think. We know that being disruptive makes people talk and what better way to engage young people than to shake things up?
As I mentioned, YouthNet is a wholly online charity providing emotional support through services and sites such as TheSite.org. We wanted to drive awareness of the charity and its services amongst young people, but we wanted to do it in the place that they most need to listen, and that place (believe it or not) is not in front of a computer screen but in the ‘real world’ - offline, where they make their decisions… in the bar.
Based upon this insight, the Sex on Tap campaign and the ‘Morning After Brewery’ was born…
The results? 6,000+ students experienced the Morning After Brewery across multiple university bars and were exposed to TheSite.org for the first time, 17,000 fully branded assets were given away as well as the odd thing being ‘misplaced’ from the bars (well they are students after all!).
And outside of the uni bars? The activity was talked about online by students, university unions, university press and local press including the Manchester Evening News, The Coventry Telegraph and BBC Radio Manchester (who even interviewed some students from Manchester about the campaign).
In all Sex on Tap reached over three quarters of a million people with, in the words of one student from Warwick “…a good message, a good good message!” that they couldn’t help but listen to.
This week I discovered a handy graphic from author Geoff Livingston that tracks the history of ‘influencer theory’.
The idea of the influencer – that well-connected, vocal and trusted trend-setter who spreads advocacy and sales through his or her online network – has been hugely important in the development of social campaigns. However, it far precedes Gladwell’s 2000 ‘Tipping Point‘.
Back in the late nineteenth century the theory about how, why, and at what rate new ideas and technology spread through cultures – a field dubbed diffusion of innovations – was already being developed by the likes of French sociologist Gabriel Tarde, US sociologist H. Earl Pemberton and German and Austrian anthropologists such as Friedrich Ratzel and Leo Frobenius. And in his 1962 ‘Diffusion of Innovations’, Everett Rogers went on to explain how the adoption of innovations could be harnessed by individuals and organisations.
My point? The influencer was not a concept created by social media. Marketers have somewhat embraced influencers as ‘the answer’ to social traction online, but in fact, few influencer campaigns actually generate big results. The ones that do – for example, our Tron Legacy/Nokia N8 campaign for Nokia as described in this month’s Marketing Week Digital Strategy supplement – carefully target influencers but also plan for much bigger, messier and more inclusive participation beyond the same old ‘opinion leaders.’
So I would suggest that we keep four things in mind when thinking about ‘influencers’:
Influencers don’t just live on the web. Don’t forget that you can reach online influencers through offline means (often much more emotionally effective), but also that some hugely powerful community leaders don’t care a fig about Facebook. How are you going to reach the most trusted mum at the school gates, as well as the tech king with 20,000 followers?
To get big results you need to focus on the influenced as much as the influencers. How can you create something adaptable and customisable so that each person can make it their own and maintain the spreading momentum? How can you make it easy for the lazy or the non-content creators to be touched?
Every one of your customers and potential customers deserves a great experience, not just those who have a high Klout score. Do not focus on making just the obvious, identifiable influencers happy – everyone has influence in their own way.
Stop thinking about influencers. Start thinking about people.
The music industry has taken a radical turn in the last ten years. Anyone watching with even a passing interest can’t fail to have noticed how the emphasis has turned to online tools. My colleague Molly touched on this issue very recently and she had a great point to make – labels, industry types, and even bands, have been stuck on technology.
If they’re not discussing piracy and copyright ownership, taking infringers to court or wallowing in the decline of the industry, execs and bands alike are focusing on the wealth of new tools that have emerged to help them sell via traditional and new channels. Which of them is going to save the industry? Is it Topspin, Nimbit, Fanbridge, et al, who are giving artists more control of their fan conversations and fulfilling the prophecy of the direct-to-fan model? Will it be TuneCore, which allows the artist to circumvent the label altogether and directly sell their music online? Or will it be something like TuneRights, making music a revenue stream for both artist and fan?
Amidst these heated debates it seems to me that we’re missing the only thing that can truly nurture the industry: The Fan.
Sure, it’s well documented that a music fan can be crazy, loyal and bordering on militant in their obsession. It can’t have escaped anyone’s notice that Lady Gaga’s ‘Little Monsters’ bow to her authority with reverence. Or that Justin Bieber’s ‘Beliebers’ dominated the trending topics on Twitter for so long that they started banning his appearance there. Not to be outdone, 30 Seconds to Mars fans, calling themselves the ‘Echelon’ and My Chemical Romance fans, the ‘MCRmy’, have been equally vocal in online voting wars. This is an industry with hardcore advocates. Even MTV acknowledged the fan communities in their recent O Music Awards with the category of ‘Fan Army FTW’.
So why, when the industry analyses and obsesses over the changing landscape of music, do few talk about these fans, their communities and the power they wield? In all this change one thing remains constant – the passion, dedication and emotional attachment of a music fan to their artist.
This emotional connection to the artist is what drives music fans and it should be the centre of any debate. Why do they have that connection? What created it? And how can we encourage that connection in every music consumer across the world?
These days we have to really make people want to buy music. We can’t just assume anymore. The industry can crack down and try to force people to buy instead of illegally download, and don’t get me wrong, it is their right to do so – illegal downloading is a problem that needs to be addressed. But let’s face it, there will always be piracy, and the harder the industry pushes against the angry pockets of the Internet, the bigger and longer the fight will be. A shift in attitude needs to happen. Instead of trying to sue Limewire to the tune of $75 trillion dollars and attempting to use brute force, the focus must be on how we get people to WANT to purchase.
You might think that no one wants to buy what they can get for free, but on the contrary, fans who are invested in the success of an artist – one they have followed since inception, or one they feel particularly close to – will want to support the artist in every way, including purchasing their music. Further, when fans experience music through a community that is given status as being an important and significant entity in an artist and label’s considerations, they become highly invested in the act of buying and promoting. Often fans will go ahead without you, but why let them flail around when you can direct and harness that enthusiasm to build a campaign that will cut through at grass roots level?
Many labels do a bit of this without strategy or direction, sending out a thoughtless email here and there – reaching out without consistency, viewing it as a way to play nice while investing in expensive above the line campaigns. But few understand the value of their advocates and the ways in which they can make a difference to the industry as a whole – as the glue that keeps the artist stuck to the consciousness of the general public, both on and offline.
Given the right encouragement and tools, fans are the best hope. The music industry is in a unique position – while other industries struggle for evangelists and take great pains to build consumer experiences that will lead to advocacy, in music we are presented with this on a platter. That is no doubt what has caused the industry to take fans and communities for granted, but imagine taking that platter of advocates and creating something meaningful from it.
A music fan is not just a consumer, buying an album and gig ticket once a year, but a powerful voice for an artist, reaching the niches we can’t with an authenticity that is unrivalled. By involving them in the entire promotional strategy and ensuring that they are invested in the success of the artist, we will find that the fans are our strongest ‘tool’ in overcoming the difficulties the industry faces today.
So, as a music fan (rather than a marketer, consumer or industry player): what do you feel?
There is an abundance of content being published around the interwebz this week all around the latest piece of social glue known as Google+
Unless you have been living inside your computer rather than right next to it these past few weeks, you no doubt know that Google+ has hit and it, according to the big G themselves at least, seems to be doing very well indeed.
We have our opinions on the service here at @1000heads (which I’m sure we’ll come back to another day) however, for today, all we want to know is this very simple two-part question:
Have you used it yet and what do you think?
We’d love to get opinions from all of you; journalists, social media analysts, fellow agencies, clients, readers passing by. Where did you hear about it? Are you on it? What have you done with it? Will you be sticking with it?
A comedic tale for the fast-food friendly amongst you –
It was Bank Holiday Monday here in the UK a little while a go and, for me personally, post-big birthday celebrations for someone dear. For breakfast/lunch/hangover-medicine, Domino’s Pizza was chosen (don’t judge) and, as I went through the ordering process, the social creative agency part of my brain refused to switch off;
“Now, wouldn’t it be awesome if I could share this order… I was out with a whole bunch of mates last night and the sheer comedy value of participating in hangover junk food is just too good not to share.”
And so it was, as I was greeted by the post-payment ‘your order is being prepared’ screen I was invited to share my order! “Yes!” I thought “that’s EXACTLY what I want to do!” – but alas, the only option available to me was Twitter.
Interesting.
OK, let’s be clear: I am entering into this from a fairly unique use-case position. I am (probably) not Dominos’ average customer. In fact, I would even go so far as to suggest that the average Domino’s customer may not even have a Twitter account yet (although given the recent News International debacle, that’s definitely changing) – in the UK at least. Conversely, Facebook usage is definitely country-wide and yet the ‘share this order to my wall’ button is strangely absent.
Odd.
Parking that for a second, the whole thing got me thinking about audiences. Often, when discussing word of mouth strategies with new clients, we first address the planning and optimisation; where are these users/customers/consumers [delete where preferable] in social media, what communities do they belong to?
An obvious example would be discovering that a footwear company has zero exposure on Twitter but a huge Flickr following of photographers (who love shooting their feet, as it were), and prescribing a strategy model to fit against that, ie: DON’T start a Twitter channel – at least not yet anyway – engage with your fans and advocates on their platform of choice (not yours).
Bringing this back to Domino’s, I don’t want to share my post-hangover pizza with my 7000+ followers, however my Facebook friends, many of whom who were out with me on that particular weekend and (perhaps rather tellingly) also not on Twitter – I’d definitely tell them. Hell, some of them might even be local enough to come ‘round and steal a slice.
My point is: you follow people on Twitter, you friend them on Facebook.
Do you want to share personal experiences with your followers or your friends? Or perhaps even both? Domino’s – it would seem – would prefer it if I chose the former. However, little ol’ me, I’d only really be interested in sharing with the latter.
Purchase sharing is still only in its fledgling stages (and will only get bigger), naturally some brands are more friend-friendly than others. When you’re ordering pizza this weekend, have a think about that -
When the time comes, who would you rather share with?
NB: This blog post only came to me after I had finished the original pizza. So the two pepperoni passions I ordered the other night were purely for research and screen capture purposes. Honest.
A certain little scandal in the UK right now involving The News of the World has left the nation’s journalism reeling, and posed some serious questions for the industry. How was this level of unethical behaviour allowed to happen? How do we prevent it from happening again? What are the standards of journalism now that anyone can blog news and opinions?
With freedom of speech vs regulation at the heart of the debate, some leading writers have touted word of mouth as the force that will evolve and transform the industry.
The Economist has written both a provocative leader and a full special report on the topic of how conversational culture is transforming news, from WikiLeaks to comments on online newspaper blogs.
Their basic premise? That
“…as news becomes more social, participatory, diverse and partisan, it is in many ways returning to the more chaotic, freewheeling and politically charged environment of the era before the emergence of mass media in the 19th century. And although the internet has proved hugely disruptive to journalists, for consumers—who now have a wider choice than ever of news sources and ways of accessing them—it has proved an almost unqualified blessing.”
According to new media author and columnist Jeff Jarvis, crowdsourced fact-checking will now be our only real way to achieve real accountability and reassure readers; “rather than enabling government and media to become even more entwined, we must explode their bonds and open up the business of both for all to see”.
The implication is that for the first time since mass media gained hegemony, we once again live in a public sphere which has regained its power to challenge closed systems and call bullshit. This affects individuals, governments, brands and previously untouchable media conglomerates.
All of them need to start learning how to harness it for good, rather than fearing, suppressing or ridiculing it.
The Challenge:
How do we use WOMTrak to help market both 1000heads and its insights and analysis suite?
The Insight:
1000heads excels at reactive work. Contemporaneous content will always get bigger pick up, so throughout June we planned to keep our eyes peeled for an event where we could do just that.
What We Did:
Working with a small but multi-talented team (and taking inspiration from an earlier 1000heads blog post) we would use the heavyweight championship boxing match between David Haye & Wladimir Klitschko as a test subject for our word of mouth analysis team. Tracking data before, during and after the fight would give us three groups of data, or ’rounds’, that we could give to our creative team and external design partners to build an infographic around.
1000heads is unique in this space in that we don’t just specialise in social media. We wanted the end result to not only demonstrate the power of our WOMTrak product, but also our speed & agility in turning projects around. We hadn’t attempted anything like this before and so the drive was there to not only get it right first time but to also somehow keep it uniquely 1000heads’.
Everything can be made better, there has to be a time when you say ‘No more. Publish.’
Irrespective of the result, a good infographic will always get picked up
Overall the results (for what was fundamentally merely a test subject) were outstanding.
A 400% increase in blog traffic, a number of new business enquiries and of course, the proof that we have the team to produce this kind of work for all our clients, both old and new.
It should be said that, internally at least, we made our objectives clear from the outset: how can we use the latest news events to demonstrate our products, our creativity and ultimately our hard work and agility. I think I can quite safely say that when it came to answering the brief, our team stepped up and delivered.
